In most cases, no. It does not reliably improve an athlete's recruiting chances and it can now cost an athlete college eligibility. Holding an athlete back a year in grade school or middle school, or reclassing in high school, is a bet on development that is difficult to project at the age of 13 or 14. With the new NCAA age-based eligibility model, that bet now carries a real price: an athlete may lose a year or more of college eligibility. We have been tracking this shift closely in our NCAA 5-in-5 breakdown and our coverage of the NCAA eligibility changes. This applies whether your athlete plays basketball, football, soccer, baseball, lacrosse, hockey, volleyball or another sport. New Jersey lawmakers are now taking aim at the practice. State Senator Anthony Bucco introduced S4545, which would limit athletes who are held back in grades 6 through 8 solely for athletic advantage to six semesters of high school eligibility, effectively ending their senior season. Students held back for academic, medical or developmental reasons would not be affected. New Jersey has been here before. State Senator Richard Codey pushed a similar "redshirting" bill back in 2015, saying "Right now, it's not cheating, but we know it is." Pennsylvania has already acted. In 2023 the PIAA adopted a rule that uses up a year of high school eligibility for athletes who repeat eighth grade without being required to. I will leave the politics to others. My concern is the athlete's best interests. As former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks, we know how these decisions affect recruiting, and what they can cost an athlete academically and in their development, quality of life and future. Why Are Families Reclassing or Holding Athletes Back?The logic sounds reasonable on a surface level. An extra year means increased growth, strength and skill development versus younger competition, leading to a higher career and recruiting arc. Some families may also be seduced by the prospect of NIL and revenue share money at the college level, which can make a long-shot bet feel worth taking. In the current landscape, families are also pressured to make impactful decisions with a short term view in the absence of certainty regarding how their athlete will develop. The conjecture is that the athlete will be better positioned to be recruited, with more maturity and more time to develop skills and athleticism and get physically stronger than their peers. The same pressure is behind the transfer trends we covered in The Surge in Athlete Transfers: A Growing Challenge for High Schools and the retention strategies in Your Athletes Are Transferring: Here's Your Strategy for Retention and Recruiting. Fear drives early decisions. Early decisions are usually the wrong ones. How Does the NCAA 5-in-5 Rule Change the Math?The NCAA 5-in-5 rule has significantly changed the paradigm for reclassing and holding athletes back. Divisions I and II have both adopted an age-based eligibility model, and it is in effect: five seasons of competition in a five-year window. According to the rule, athletes who are held back or reclass must still enroll no later than the academic year after their 19th birthday to utilize the full five years. We have been following this shift closely and broke down the rule in NCAA 5-in-5 Eligibility Rule: Impact on High School Recruiting and Reclassing and the broader changes in NCAA Eligibility Rule Changes: Impact on High School Recruiting. Here is an example of how this can play out. An athlete turns 19 in October 2027. If he or she is held back once and graduates in June 2028, enrolling that fall still works. If that athlete is held back and also does a postgraduate year, enrollment slips to fall 2029, a year after the window, resulting in the loss of one of his or her five seasons. Stack more than one move and it gets worse. Held back in middle school, reclassed in high school and a postgrad year on top can cost an athlete two years of eligibility. This is a new paradigm. Under their age-based rule, each extra year beyond the first that an athlete spends before enrolling in college can cost one of the five seasons of eligibility. That is why I wrote that the NCAA quietly left out the most important fix. Much of the advice families hear today was built based on the old rules, not the new ones. Is It Too Early to Know How an Athlete Will Develop?Almost always. As I often say relative to recruiting, "Hope is not a strategy" and it certainly applies here. At 13 or 14, growth, strength and skill are all moving targets. Some athletes do not begin their upward trajectory until junior or senior year. Some never reach the level they hoped for. Some never grow or develop physically as projected, through no fault of their own. Many athletes also get bypassed by their peers while they level off physically and in their skills. It happens in basketball, football, soccer, baseball, lacrosse, hockey, volleyball and other sports. Holding back at 13 assumes you can predict the future, which is a big bet. Waiting gives you a much more accurate and relevant perspective, backed by real data:
Relatively elite athletes often achieve recruiting opportunities by staying on a normal track. Others may not be recruitable at the level the family hopes for, and an extra year will not necessarily change that. Either way, holding off on pulling the trigger to facilitate an extra year costs nothing. Deciding to do so prematurely may cost a year of eligibility, and it may also cost significant dollars in private school or sports academy tuition to make it happen. What Are the Real Odds of Being Recruited?Small, and that is why a costly early bet is risky. According to the NCAA's 2024-25 data, about 7 percent of high school athletes go on to compete in NCAA sports across all divisions. Division I is even more elusive:
Those percentages are for all high school athletes, not just those who reclass. They show how thin the margin is and how much one lost year or one wrong move can matter. NIL money is also a bit of a longshot. The bulk of it typically goes to athletes in revenue sports at the Division I level, primarily football and basketball. One report on 2025-26 revenue sharing payments at top FBS conferences found about 64 percent went to football and about 29 percent to men's and women's basketball combined, leaving roughly 7 percent for every other sport. Do not be seduced by the hope of NIL or revenue share money into rolling the dice without relevant results and a plan in accordance with these. If you are weighing an offer, read our breakdowns of NIL contract red flags and what to look for before signing a college NIL or revenue share contract, and see how college sports reform is changing the risks. Our NIL and contract advising page explains how we help. What Does the Research Say About Being the Oldest in the Class?Researchers call it the relative age effect: kids who are older in their grade often get an early athletic edge. But that edge appears to fade around age 17 as peers catch up. Studies on holding children back before kindergarten are mixed at best, and some link it to worse academic outcomes. My takeaway: the athletic edge is not necessarily sustainable, and being older may give a temporary academic advantage that fades as classmates catch up. Neither is strong enough to bet a child's development, college opportunities or quality of life on. It is a huge bet, and that is why you should be patient, assess how your athlete develops and rely on experts, not force a decision at 13. Our Athletes and Families page explains how we help. What Does Reclassing Do to Academics?This is the part that gets ignored. The athlete is often moved to a sports academy or a school chosen for its athletic focus, not its educational strengths. Prep schools and sports academies often recruit athletes aggressively and encourage them to reclass, so make sure the decision serves your athlete's recruiting and academic future, not a sales pitch that ends up in a reduced role and less exposure. Before any move, confirm the school's core courses are NCAA-approved, because unapproved courses can block Division I and II eligibility. Verify it yourself with the NCAA Eligibility Center. A weak academic setting can also hurt grades, test preparation and admissions options. A great athletic opportunity does not help if the transcript does not clear. Can Reclassing Lead to Burnout and Injury?It can. A reclass mindset means more training, more games and more pressure, earlier. Research from the University of Wisconsin found that highly specialized high school athletes had roughly a 50 percent greater risk of injury. More is not always better, especially when an athlete's body is still growing. The NBA and USA Basketball set out to answer how much activity is healthy. Their youth basketball guidelines, built on research from a health and wellness working group, recommend a maximum of 10 hours a week of organized basketball for ages 12 to 14 and 14 hours a week for grades 9 through 12, with at least one day of rest a week. They also advise delaying single-sport specialization until at least age 14. Reclassing and academy schedules can push well past those numbers. Burnout is harder to measure and just as real. It can come from fatigue after years of constant practices and games, and from the pressure of being told since age 12 that everything depends on sports. Many athletes are also pushed to play a single sport year round, with no downtime or break, and they miss out on just being a kid socially. Whatever the cause, the athlete can lose the love of the game by the time recruiting actually starts. This mentality and pressure are exacerbated by the drive to reclass. What Does It Cost Athletes Socially?More than most families expect. A transfer or change of schools disrupts the relationships an athlete has built over years. It often means leaving the classmates and teammates an athlete grew up with. Holding an athlete back puts him or her in a different class from friends, and leaving for an academy removes them from home, family and community. Those relationships can last a lifetime. High school is also where athletes learn to be part of a team, a class and a community, not just a roster spot. I have coached young people at several levels. The ones who hold up best have a life beyond the sport. When Does a Postgraduate Year Actually Make Sense?At the end of high school, not the beginning. A postgrad year can be a smart move for an athlete who needs physical development, academic repair or more exposure. By senior year you can judge that realistically based on tangible results. It is also the point where the 5-in-5 math and your options can be rationally determined. Wait, assess, then decide. Reclass or hold back earlier and the age-based clock may already be running, leaving you without the year you could have opted for later. The right answer depends on the sport, the athlete and the level being targeted. Our recruiting advisory services are built to help with exactly that. I also address this on the PREP Athletics Podcast: read the recap or listen to the full conversation. FAQDoes reclassing help an athlete get recruited? What is the NCAA 5-in-5 rule? Is it better to wait on a postgraduate year? Does repeating a grade in middle school affect recruiting? Does holding a child back a year give an athletic advantage? How do I know if a prep school or academy is NCAA approved? This article is general information, not legal advice. Have any NIL or revenue share agreement reviewed by a qualified expert before signing. Not sure whether reclassing or a postgrad year is right for your athlete? Contact RecruitU to get started with Expertise Plus Access, from former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks.
0 Comments
A note before we get into it: we have held off publishing a breakdown of this bill because it has suffered numerous revisions and delays which will likely continue. Treat what follows as a snapshot of where things stand today, not a final word. The Protect College Sports Act passed the Senate 77-22 on September 28 but it has not passed the House and is not law yet. Its path forward is uncertain: the House is not scheduled to return until after the November 3 midterm elections and Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated he does not expect the bill to be taken up before the lame-duck session, if it is taken up at all this Congress. It's worth knowing, however, how it may increase recruiting opportunities for high school recruits and their families. The elements worth paying attention to now are the ones that impact the number of recruiting slots: a new limit on repeat transfers, a longer eligibility window for current college athletes and a handful of provisions aimed at professional athletes, Olympic and women's sports and international recruits. Here is what actually shifts the playing field and what does not. Does the "One Free Transfer" Rule Help High School Recruits?Yes, over time. The Act permits every college athlete one transfer without losing eligibility, with additional transfers allowed only for specific reasons: a coach leaving, a sport getting cut, graduate study, or sexual assault or harassment. This trend has been driven by coaches prioritizing athletes in the transfer portal over high school athletes. Fewer repeat transfers means shrinking the pool and increasing the number of open spots for incoming high school recruits. With only one free transfer to work with, when you use it matters as much as whether you use it. One option which we implement in our recruiting strategies with our athletes and families: save that transfer for your fifth year, when the graduate-study exception applies, and use it to enroll in a funded master's program at a new school while you play out your final season of eligibility. Done right, that is a tuition-free graduate degree rather than a transfer spent early chasing more playing time. However, that also increases the importance of committing to the best fit school for you on the front end, which is where our Athletes and Families resources come in. Does the Five-Year Eligibility Framework Help or Hurt High School Recruits?In the short term it works against you. The Act establishes a five-year eligibility transition beginning at age 19 or high school graduation, building on the eligibility changes we broke down in NCAA Eligibility Rule Changes: Impact on High School Recruiting, NIL, and Transfers. As a result, it grants current college athletes an additional year of eligibility, which means more upperclassmen stay on rosters longer, competing for the scholarship slots that would otherwise open up for the next class of recruits. Expect this to be a temporary headwind for near-term recruiting cycles as the transition phases in. Do New Limits on Professional Athletes Open Roster Spots?They should, and this one favors recruits directly. The Act sets eligibility rules that exclude certain professional-level participation across sports: one exception ties the start of basketball eligibility to a player's 19th birthday or first full-time enrollment (whichever occurs first) and a separate exception covers athletes in other sports who earn prize money from a source that is not their school, collective or an associated entity. Basketball is the sport most likely to feel this. Fewer older players with pro experience competing for a limited number of scholarships means more room for high school recruits coming in. Does the Act Protect Women's and Olympic Sports Roster Spots?Yes, and this is a clear win for recruits. FBS programs must maintain a minimum of 16 sports, and schools with $80 million or more in annual athletic revenue must preserve their 2024-25 roster levels in non-revenue sports such as track and field, swimming and diving, wrestling, gymnastics, rowing, fencing and water polo. While this provision does not necessarily create additional roster spots, it does preserve the opportunities that already exist. However, with football spending consuming an outsized share of athletic department budgets, protecting existing roster spots in these Olympic and women's sports from being cut is impactful, especially for future high schoolers. One caveat worth knowing: these protections are written with an expiration date while the bill's antitrust protection for schools and conferences is permanent. That imbalance is worth watching as the bill moves forward. Does the Act Limit International Recruits?Not yet, but it's fluid, as there are three separate pieces of legislation that are easy to confuse. Section 128 of the Act itself reads:
That is a statement of policy, not a rule. It sets no percentage, no threshold, and no enforcement mechanism. Nothing in the Act as passed by the Senate actually requires a school to do anything differently. House Republicans are reportedly pushing to add real teeth to this provision before they will move the bill forward, which tells you Section 128 is understood as symbolic even by the people who wrote it. Two other proposals show what a real limit could look like: the TEAM USA Act would cap international athletes at 20 percent of a roster, or one player on teams with fewer than 10, enforced through the school's eligibility for federal student loan programs. A Texas state bill, S.B. 1319, would cap foreign nationals at 25 percent of athletic scholarships per program at Texas public universities starting in the 2026-27 academic year, though it has no specific enforcement mechanism written into it yet. If any version of a real cap becomes law at the federal or state level, it would open meaningful roster space for domestic recruits in sports with heavy international representation such as tennis. Today, none of that is in force. Keep an eye out for further developments regarding this issue, particularly if your sport trends to include a high level of international recruits at the college level. What About NIL and Revenue Share?Briefly: the Act confirms athletes can earn NIL money and use agents without losing eligibility, requires disclosure of NIL deals over $600 a year and increases the revenue-sharing cap at the center of the reforms we covered in College Sports Reform Is Creating More Risk — Not Less indefinitely, with inflation adjustments going forward. It does not create standardized contract terms between schools and athletes. It does, however, call for medical coverage and agent certification, two gaps we have flagged in actual NIL and revenue-share negotiations and contracts. I will cover areas of athlete exposure in detail in a separate article because they deserve more than a paragraph here. If you are evaluating an NIL or revenue-share offer right now, read our breakdown of NIL contract red flags and what to look for before signing, and have any agreement reviewed by a qualified expert before you sign. Should Recruits and Families Take This Seriously Yet?Here is my honest read, as someone who has spent my career inside college athletics as a player, a Division I assistant and a head coach at both the Division II and III levels. This bill has already been watered down from its original form through committee and floor horse-trading and it still needs to pass the House, where Republicans want changes including a real international-athlete cap and an outright ban on classifying athletes as employees. Other ambitious sports-reform bills have stalled at exactly this stage. If your own recruiting process has stalled out for reasons that have nothing to do with any of this, our breakdown of what to do when recruiting goes quiet is worth a read. The deeper issue is one this bill does not touch. The NCAA wants Congress to hand it antitrust protection to enforce transfer and eligibility rules, and compensation caps unilaterally, while giving athletes no seat at the table to negotiate any of it. The one structural fix that would resolve compensation, eligibility and transfer disputes in a single stroke (and save a lot of time, money and angst) is collective bargaining between athletes and the institutions that profit from them. Every professional league does this. The NCAA will not, because it does everything in its power to avoid athletes being classified as employees and this bill facilitates that position. Until that changes, expect Congress to keep getting yanked back in periodically to save the day (and likely to no avail as history has shown). For now, build your recruiting plan around the fit and opportunity in front of you, not around what this bill might eventually become. Our recruiting advisory services are built to help athletes and families do exactly that, with former college coaches who have real recruiting expertise, intimate knowledge of the landscape and direct access to coaching networks. FAQIs the Protect College Sports Act law yet? Will the new eligibility rules reduce roster spots for incoming freshmen? Does the Act actually limit international student-athletes? Does the Act limit how much athletes can earn from NIL deals? Does the Act apply to all NCAA divisions? Ready to build a recruiting plan that accounts for where the rules actually stand today, not where they might end up? Contact RecruitU to get started with Expertise Plus Access. 
Most esports and flag football athletes should not count on a full athletic scholarship, and you need to plan around that reality now, not after signing day. Scholarship money in both sports is real, but it is limited, and it is concentrated at schools below the Power Conference level. Our updated RecruitU analysis indicates what it means for how you should approach recruiting in either sport. How Much College Esports and Flag Football Scholarship Money Is Actually Out There?Both sports have grown fast. The scholarship dollars have not kept up.
If you are building a college list based on scholarship dollars in either sport, it is important to recognize the reality: that list is short, and it is not made up of the schools you have heard of on Saturday afternoons. Flag football today looks a lot like esports did about a decade ago. Both sports' growth and adoption at today's college level have been partially driven by similar enrollment pressures, with schools leveraging their growing popularity to attract students (currently during a period of declining college-age population). Esports started with a handful of scrappy varsity programs at smaller schools around 2014 and has grown into hundreds of programs with real, if relatively modest, scholarship money behind it. Flag football is following the same early path right now, which means today's scholarship landscape is likely to expand over time, the way esports did. However, it's not there yet, and you should not plan your recruiting around where it might be in ten years. Even as flag football grows, expect full athletic scholarships to stay rare, the same way they have in esports. Are Power Conference Schools Actually Investing in Esports and Flag Football?Here is where you need to be realistic, despite the hype. The University of Nebraska, a Big Ten school, is the only Power Four program that has actually committed to varsity flag football with real scholarships behind it. The Big 12 has said it is "exploring" conference-wide sponsorship, also aiming at 2028, but not one Big 12 member school has committed to fielding a team. Nebraska's single commitment represents the only one of the roughly 67 schools across the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Big 12 combined. The SEC and ACC have not indicated a flag football initiative at all. I have spent my career inside college athletics, as a player, a Division I assistant and a head coach at both the Division II and III levels, and I will tell you plainly: that gap is not closing soon. Power Conference athletic departments are absorbing outsized spending on football and basketball at programs running $40 million to $60 million a year once outside NIL collective money is layered on top of the athletes' own revenue-sharing pool, on top of a record $228 million in coach buyouts across the Power 4 in 2025 alone. When a department under that kind of pressure has to choose between football and a brand-new varsity program with limited associated revenue, esports and flag football will lose that fight almost every time. Should You Pick a College Based on Athletic Scholarship Money?No. Chasing a scholarship offer in either sport can lead you to a poor fit school.
Should Esports and Flag Football Athletes Expect NIL Money?Most should not, and you need to know why before you build a plan around it. NIL and revenue-share dollars at college level are overwhelmingly prioritized toward football and basketball, the sports that generate TV, ticket and other revenue that supports whole programs. Esports and flag football athletes are largely left out of that pool unless they bring something schools and brands can monetize on their own, which typically means a significant social media following or content presence. An athlete with real reach on Instagram, TikTok or a streaming platform can attract NIL deals independent of what their sport pays, but that is a personal-brand opportunity, not a sport-wide one. It is not something most recruits should count on. Build your recruiting plan around scholarship and fit first, and treat any NIL opportunity in either sport as a bonus, not a budget line. If an NIL offer does come your way, review it the same way we outline in our NIL and revenue-share contract advising and our guide to NIL contract red flags before signing anything. What Happens If You Do Not Make It as a Pro?Neither sport offers a reliable path to a professional income, and that has to shape your plan. Esports has professional leagues but they support a small number of players. Careers there are often short. Flag football's clearest professional path runs through the 2028 Olympics and a small national team, not a stable pro league. That means your college decision should be built first around preparing for a career you actually want or an academic major that you're interested in pursuing, with athletics as part of the experience, not the whole plan. Use whatever athletic scholarship money is available, but pair it with academic scholarships, need-based aid and merit aid. Choose a major and a suitable school that set you up for life after your sport, not just during it. What Should You Actually Do Next?
This is exactly the kind of realistic, research-backed guidance RecruitU provides to the Athletes and Families we work with in both of these sports through our recruiting advisory services. Former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks can help you separate real opportunity from wishful thinking in a fast-growing but still-developing recruiting space. FAQCan I get a full athletic scholarship for esports or flag football? Should I only consider colleges that offer esports or flag football scholarships? Is there a reliable path to a professional career in esports or flag football? Can esports or flag football athletes make NIL money? Ready to build a realistic recruiting plan for esports or flag football? Contact RecruitU today to get started with Expertise Plus Access. 
Yes. Two lawsuits that broke this week show exactly why we tell every family to get an NIL or revenue share contract analyzed by an expert before committing and signing. One involves a morals clause used to cut off payment. The other involves a penalty clause triggered by a transfer. Both are red flags we already covered, now playing out in real courtrooms with significant financial and reputational implications. USC and the Morals Clause With No Due ProcessFormer USC basketball player Chad Baker-Mazara has sued the school and head coach Eric Musselman resulting from circumstances related to his exit from the program. According to the lawsuit, after Baker-Mazara left the team, USC terminated his NIL agreement, citing a morals clause. His lawsuit calls that clause “hopelessly vague, overbroad, and unenforceable,” and alleges USC’s reliance on it was a pretext to avoid paying what he was still owed. This mirrors Red Flag 3 from our recent breakdown of NIL contract red flags: performance or conduct clauses providing the college full discretion, with no due process mechanism before payment or participation gets pulled. A clause that lets a school decide unilaterally that a violation occurred and cut off payment accordingly is a huge oversight. It is exactly the kind of language we tell families to push back against before committing. Ole Miss and the Transfer Penalty ClauseOle Miss has sued two former players, Princewill Umanmielen and Devin Harper. Both signed revenue-share agreements to return to the program in January, then entered the transfer portal and signed with LSU instead. The lawsuits seek a total of $950,000, plus attorneys’ fees, citing penalty provisions in the agreements tied to leaving within 90 days of signing. This reflects Red Flag 8 implications from our post: clawback and penalty provisions that function the same way a non-compete clause punishes an employee for quitting to join a competitor. However, here it is aimed at a college athlete choosing to play somewhere else. It also echoes the Wilson case at Georgia we wrote about previously. This is not an isolated incident. It is becoming a pattern. Why This Matters Right NowBoth of these situations involve contracts that were executed, not contracts that were simply proposed. The athletes involved agreed to terms that, in hindsight, exposed them to exactly the kind of risk we warn families about. Neither of these cases is resolved, and we are not weighing in on how the courts will ultimately rule. What we can say clearly is that the underlying contract mechanics, discretionary morals clauses and transfer penalty provisions, are common. Real scrutiny is imperative before signing, not after careers are damaged and lawsuits are filed, resulting in significant financial and reputational consequences. Having an Agent Is Not the Same as Being ProtectedWho was watching out for these players? Cases like these typically involve athletes who had some form of agent or advisor representing them at the time they signed. That should give families pause. As we wrote in our original breakdown, there is no licensing, certification, or credentialing requirement for player agents or NIL advisors in college athletics. Anyone can put that title on a business card and charge unlimited fees. Having representation is not the same as having representation that possesses the expertise and experience to understand, and push back on, the specific terms that end up costing these athletes hundreds of thousands of dollars and irreparable career damage. George’s Take“I get asked whether the red flags we pinpoint will actually be triggered, or if we are just being too much of a stickler. These two cases emphatically answer that question. The clauses and issues in question here are not unique terms buried in one rare clause. They are common across all of the contracts we see. They are being leveraged by colleges more frequently in both high profile and under the radar cases right now, with big money and career impact. This is exactly why we emphatically tell families not to commit until an expert, not a pretender, has reviewed the contract line by line. You must not be passive in accepting these contracts as written.” — George White, Founder and CEO, RecruitU Frequently Asked QuestionsWhat is a morals clause, and why does the athlete’s lawsuit against USC matter? What is a transfer penalty clause, and why does the Ole Miss lawsuit matter? Does this mean every NIL case has these problems? How can a family avoid ending up in a situation like this? Should you receive the NIL or revenue share contract from the college before committing verbally or signing a scholarship agreement? Are these cases resolved? Get Your Contract Reviewed Before You SignThese are not hypothetical risks. RecruitU reviews NIL and revenue share contracts for athletes and families before they commit to anything, so situations like these are avoided, not litigated. Contact RecruitU for a Contract Review →This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every NIL or revenue share contract should be reviewed by a qualified individual, in addition to any guidance you receive elsewhere, before signing. Details of the lawsuits referenced are based on public reporting and court filings, and both matters remain unresolved. 
A college recruiting visit should be treated like a comprehensive research project, not a vacation, which is the typical approach taken by most recruits. In addition to their reluctance to ask hard questions or request exposure to specific aspects of the campus and program, recruits allow the coaches to control the agenda and thus the narrative, experience, and impression. We emphasize to our clients that the main purpose is to gain as much exposure as possible to what it will truly be like to be a student and an athlete day to day at that college. Dig deep — gain exposure to as many of your personal impact priority areas of interest and issues as you can. Question other athletes and students directly about the quality of their experience and their honest opinion of the college, program and coaches. The goal for the recruited athlete is to determine whether the college and program actually meet their preferences, interests and values. That means going beyond the choreographed experience coaches will tailor for you. You cannot blame them for that — they are trying to put their best foot forward in order to get recruits to commit as soon as possible. This Is a Business Trip, Not a VacationPete Strickland, former college basketball coach and head coach of the Irish National team, once asked me how many schools Pro Football Hall of Famer Gale Sayers committed to. I guessed one or two. The real number was ten. Sayers visited ten schools and committed to each one during the visit itself, ending up at Kansas simply because it was the last school he saw. This anecdote sticks with me because it is exactly what coaches are attempting to achieve. Visits are carefully staged. You are typically only exposed to the best version of the school, staff and players. Thus, it’s human nature to get caught up in the moment and want to commit based on this positive spin. If you accept their agenda as your basis for making a decision, it will be incomplete. Scratch beneath the surface and request to see and experience the specific things on your own checklist, not just the ones the program has planned for you. Treat the visit like an analysis of a business project because that is what it is, not a brief experience of the school’s Disneyland version of itself. For example, schedule it during the week while classes are in session, not on a weekend of games and social events. Moreover, stay in a dorm with the other players, rather than a hotel. Assess the Culture, Not Just the TalentClosely assess the culture of the school and the sport program itself. Does it actually match your own values and goals? A visit built entirely around a weekend of social events and watching the football game shows you the most curated version of that culture, versus a weekday when classes are in session, which will reveal insights closer to the reality of the school and program. Evaluate the People, Not Just the PitchThe people inside and surrounding the program matter as much as the program itself: teammates, coaches, other students, faculty and administration. Spending time with current players in the actual dorm rather than a hotel, and asking them and other students directly about their experience reveals much more than any manipulated perspective created by the coaches. Away from the coaching staff, the team will open up and tell you the truth. Look at Academic Opportunity and FreedomAssess whether the school gives you real academic and career opportunities and the freedom to pursue your interests, particularly in your majors of interest, not just a path designed to keep you eligible. Attend classes and talk to professors. Check the Resources and the Support SystemDoes reality match the professions of support that the coaches make? Assess the resources and support available related to your level of development as both a student and an athlete, and the actual quality of the facilities and staff. Gaining this insight is also where you learn how a program treats athletes who are struggling, not just the ones who are thriving. It is also critical to assess the financial stability of the college and the athletic program itself, which we cover in detail in our full checklist. Never Commit During the VisitWhatever you may eventually decide, never commit on the spot while at the school or in the presence of the coaches. Note your impressions, go home, and give yourself time away from any in-the-moment intoxication before making this life decision. George’s Take“I tell every family the same thing before the visit: this is not a vacation, it is a business trip. Assess the culture, the people, the academics and the actual resources behind the show. Don’t buy into the pitch. Sitting in on real classes with other students and staying with the current team in an actual dorm is much more likely to give you the inside scoop on the school, the program and coaches. The programs that hold up under that kind of scrutiny are the ones worth committing to. The ones that only look good on a Saturday during a big game are not.” — George White, Founder and CEO, RecruitU Frequently Asked QuestionsWhat are key issues that you should actually be assessing during a college recruiting visit? Should a college recruiting visit include a weekday, not just a weekend? Should athletes stay in a hotel during a recruiting visit? Is it okay to commit to a school during the recruiting visit itself? Is there a full checklist for what to cover on a recruiting visit? Planning Your Next College Recruiting Visit?The RecruitU team includes former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks to help athletes and families plan visits that actually inform the decision, not distort it. Reach out and we will share our full recruiting visit checklist, covering everything from coach questions to what to look for in the locker room. Contact RecruitU to Plan Your Recruiting Visits →
I recently reviewed a NIL/revenue share agreement generated by a college program for one of our recruited athletes and flagged numerous issues and areas of exposure for the athlete. This is from a school that the athlete was considering committing to in his recruiting. Believe it or not, my analysis of the issues and areas of exposure ran longer than the contract itself. This should tell you something about the state of college athletics and recruiting -- BUYER BEWARE!
If you or your athlete has a NIL or Revenue Share contract awaiting your signature, do not sign it yet. Not until someone who possesses expertise in NIL contracts has combed through it. Here are some common issues to look for, and why it matters more than most families realize. These Contracts Are One Sided, and Not in Your FavorI will say this plainly: every NIL and revenue share agreement I have reviewed is structured heavily, in some cases egregiously, in favor of the college. A primary cause of this reality is that there is no standard contract across college athletics largely because there is no collective bargaining in place to enable protection for athletes from usurious contracts. They are written in legalese, complicated and packed with references to issues and matters that are beyond the capabilities of most athletes and parents, let alone a 17 or 18 year old who has never read a contract in their life. They are intended, whether anyone at the college would admit it or not, to take advantage of the athlete’s understandable naivete and inexperience. One sided terms plus dense legalese is exactly how the worst clauses are able to pass through ignored or misunderstood, compounded by the absence of qualified athlete representation and protection. As we wrote about in Why is College Football's NIL Model a House of Cards?, the entire system is currently moving faster than athletes’ capability to organize to protect themselves. Here is the part that deeply disturbs me about the realities of today’s recruiting process — a coach will look your athlete in the eye — they will tell them how much they want them, how much they care about them, how their program is going to look out for and develop them. Then the contract shows up — it communicates something entirely different. It says: we will take advantage of every opportunity to void our payment obligations to you, we are not going to protect you if things go wrong, and we will cast you adrift at any time for any reason that we manufacture at our discretion. What gets promised by coaches during a recruiting visit is not documented. It is not binding and it does not have to match what actually gets put in writing. The contract is the only part that is enforceable, and it is the only part that matters once you have signed. And here is the part that makes it worse: a lot of athletes commit to a school, verbally or otherwise, before they have even seen the NIL or revenue share contract. This puts you in a position of weakness. You do not owe anyone a NIL contract commitment, and you certainly do not owe them one sight unseen. Negotiate Get the actual contract terms. Negotiate them to limit potential damages and exposure before you commit or turn down another offer. Don’t give in to pressure to sign prematurely. Once you have committed, your negotiating leverage is eliminated. Red Flag 1: Ambiguous Revenue-Share Commitment All of your compensation terms should be specific, clearly defined and from a university guaranteed source, not on the come from some contingent income source. If elements are unspecified, the college could later treat that part of your compensation as discretionary, meaning the money you expected may be significantly less. Red Flag 2: Loss of Control Over Your Own Name and Image and Likeness Rights These agreements grant the college broad rights to your name, image and likeness, meaning they can hand your NIL rights to other parties without needing your approval, and limit your own usage. Nothing in this space should be open ended and unrestricted. Red Flag 3: Performance or Conduct — Withholding Payments and Eligibility With No Due Process Beware of terms that let a college stop paying you or suspend you without the opportunity to defend yourself prior to enforcement of any penalty. Red Flag 4: More Restrictive Obligations Than NCAA or Rule of Law Allows Contracts try to impose obligations on athletes that are more burdensome than what the NCAA’s own rules already require, such as transfer portal rules. A school inserting its own differing requirements is the school claiming ownership over your freedoms that are not actually theirs to control. It is worth revisiting what we wrote in How Does the Wilson Case Expose Hypocrisy of College Sports Contracts? — coaches leave freely and are often rewarded for it, while athletes face contractual penalties for doing the same thing. Red Flag 5: Independent Contractor Status That Does Not Match Reality Colleges go out of their way to classify athletes as independent contractors while imposing restrictions that align with employee status. Schools can’t have it both ways. Red Flag 6: Lack of Injury Protection Contracts that stay silent or restrict compensation or reimbursement if the athlete gets hurt explicitly provide the college with an out to reduce, delay, or stop paying. In addition, coverage for health care should be addressed. The financial risk of an injury should not land on the athlete instead of the institution. Red Flag 7: Demands Stricter Than What the NCAA Actually Requires Contracts add restrictions well beyond what the NCAA and College Sports Commission actually require, presenting them as mandatory when they are not or yet to be resolved. That leaves you agreeing to obligations tighter than the rules that are supposed to govern your eligibility and compensation. Red Flag 8: Clawbacks and Performance-Based Payment Adjustments Do not allow claw back provisions, particularly when a transfer is involved. This is functionally the same as a non-compete clause that punishes an employee for quitting to join a rival, except here it is aimed at a college athlete choosing to play somewhere else. Also watch for language that lets the school adjust your payment based on subjective terms. This gives a school enormous leverage to reduce what it owes you, or demand money back, using standards it gets to set on its own. Why Expert Representation Matters There is no licensing, certification or credentialing requirement for player agents or NIL advisors in college athletics. Anyone can put that title on a business card and charge unlimited fees. That matters because these contracts are being negotiated, on the other side, by university compliance offices and legal counsel who do this for a living. An athlete and family deserve representation with real expertise, not just bluster and self-promotion. Be skeptical of anyone who does not deliver proven experience and references. Why Contract Protection Cannot Wait Until After You Commit Every one of these issues is negotiable before signing the contract, especially if you have other offers to leverage. Almost none of them are fixable after. Committing to a school before a knowledgeable third party has actually reviewed the language is one of the more common, and most avoidable, mistakes I see families make during the recruiting process. For High School Coaches and Counselors You do not need to become a contract expert and you should not feel compelled to give legal advice as it opens you up to liability. But you are often the first person a family turns to when an offer occurs. Knowing these red flags exist, and knowing to tell a family “get this reviewed by an expert before you sign anything,” is the best advice that you can provide. George’s Take “These documents are drafted in a complicated format on purpose to bully and intimidate the athlete with highly onerous and one-sided terms in favor of the university in a take it or leave it approach. It must be reviewed with a fine tooth comb because the college is shotgunning terms camouflaged under a flood of legalese and references that overwhelm and compromise athletes and families. My advice is emphatic: Do not sign anything and do not commit until the agreement has been dissected by an expert in this niche. Remember, your NIL or revenue share contract is a business negotiation in the current environment. You can’t rely on just a handshake agreement with the coach.” — George White, Founder and CEO, RecruitU Frequently Asked Questions Can a college really classify my athlete as an independent contractor? Yes, colleges are doing this deliberately, but the classification needs to actually match how the relationship works in practice. Restrictions that mirror employment while the contract denies employment status are worth raising with someone who understands the distinction. Is it normal for a revenue-share percentage to be left blank in a draft contract? It happens more often than families expect, but it should never be signed that way. An undefined percentage with no attached schedule is not a minor detail, it can mean that part of the compensation is not actually enforceable. What should I do if I already signed something without a full review? Have it reviewed anyway, plus it positions you to be better prepared to negotiate your next contract. Some issues can still be addressed, renegotiated, or, at minimum, understood clearly, even after signing. Is this only an issue at big Division I programs? No. We are seeing versions of these same issues across division levels, wherever NIL and revenue share agreements are being used. How long does a contract review usually take? It depends on the contract, but families should factor a few weeks’ review and negotiation period before signing, not attempt this the night before a decision is due. Before You Sign Anything RecruitU reviews NIL and revenue share contracts for athletes and families before they commit to anything. We tell you plainly what is acceptable, what is a red flag, and what needs to change before you sign. Contact RecruitU for a Contract Review →This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every NIL or revenue share contract should be reviewed by a qualified attorney, in addition to any guidance you receive elsewhere, before signing. 
If your recruiting has stalled or gone lukewarm heading into the fall, the first step is understanding why: colleges have not stopped recruiting high school athletes, but staffs are focused on nailing down their priority recruits for the roster slots they have allocated to high schoolers this cycle, which can be a smaller number relative to transfers. Selective academic schools are also working through admissions reads on their high school recruits during this window and those schools tend to recruit fewer transfers overall. Once 2027 begins, programs with roster spots still open will increasingly turn to the transfer portal to fill them. That does not mean your recruiting opportunities are empty. It means your strategy has to change. Here is exactly what athletes and families should be doing in response.
Why Does Recruiting Interest Go Quiet in the Fall? Coaching staffs work in cycles. Once the season starts, in-person evaluation windows shrink and staffs turn their attention to preparing their team on campus and closing out their priority recruits for the high school slots they have allocated, which is exactly why fall so often feels quiet even though recruiting has not stopped. Being marginalized on the recruiting front generally means one of two things: you are likely further down a program’s priority list for the roster spots they have allocated or the staff simply has not seen enough of you yet to gain the comfort level they need to move forward. Neither one is necessarily permanent and both are things an athlete and family can work to change.
What Should Athletes Do If They Are Not a Priority Right Now? Keep Reaching Out to Your Matching Colleges Silence is not a no. Continue reaching out to the programs already on your matching list — a short, direct update email or call keeps you visible when a roster spot opens or a staff revisits its board. Expand Your Pool of Matching Colleges If your current list has gone quiet, this is the time to widen it. Add programs that fit your academic and athletic profile, so you are not depending on a small number of coaches to respond and reach out to these schools. Update Your Video With Your Best Recent GamesCoaches prefer current film, not video from a year ago. Update your video distribution with clips and full game from the competitions where you performed well most recently — recruiting decisions are made on what a coach can see right now, not on reputation alone. Keep Your Social Media Active and CurrentCollege coaches and their staffs check athlete social media as part of their evaluation process. Keep it updated with recent highlights, results and activity - an inactive or outdated profile can quietly work against you. Attend Remaining On-Campus Prospect CampsCamps still remaining on the calendar are a direct opportunity to be evaluated in person by a coaching staff. This matters even more when digital outreach has slowed down, because it puts you in directly front of decision-makers. What Is Parallel Path, and Why Does It Matter Right Now? Parallel Path is the term we use at RecruitU for a group of ideal colleges that are a strong holistic fit for an athlete academically, socially, and financially, even if they may not involve athletic participation. A stalled recruiting timeline is exactly the moment to make sure this group exists alongside your athletic list, not instead of it.
Building an accurate Parallel Path group takes real due diligence and expertise, not a handful of extra applications tacked on at the end. This is a core part of the guidance we provide our clients - we work directly with athletes and families to develop their Parallel Path group with intention, so it is a set of colleges they would be genuinely happy at, not a fallback list. If Your Season Goes Well but Recruiting Still Does Not Pick UpKeep your Parallel Path options in place regardless. But if an athlete has a strong season and recruiting still does not follow, it may be worth considering a post-grad year at a prep school or academy to keep developing and generate a fresh recruiting window.
This is a conversation we have often with our clients, and we would encourage any family considering a post-grad year to consult us on the eligibility and strategic implications before committing to it. George’s Take: “This time of year, staffs are focusing on their priority recruits and preparing their team for their season, so they have a lot on their plate. That does not mean high school athletes have been forgotten - it means staffs are working to lock down the recruits they want for the slots they have allocated to high schoolers and at the highly selective schools, they are also waiting on admissions to weigh in on their priority group before they move further. What I would caution families on is recognizing that once 2027 opens up, staffs with remaining spots will typically prioritize the transfer portal to fill openings. That is exactly why every athlete needs a genuine Parallel Path in place, not as a backup plan but as a real group of colleges that fit them regardless of how their athletic recruiting plays out. We build that Parallel Path with our clients directly, because it is too important to leave to the end of the process.” — George White, Founder and CEO, RecruitU Frequently Asked Questions Does a stalled recruiting process mean a coach is no longer interested? Not necessarily. Staffs go through cycles where their attention shifts to other priorities, including transfer portal athletes, and may return to their high school recruiting board later in the process. Why are colleges focusing more on the transfer portal heading into 2027? It is not that colleges have stopped recruiting high school athletes - it is that programs with roster spots still open after locking down their priority high school recruits tend to turn to the transfer portal to fill what remains, especially as 2027 begins. How often should I follow up with a college that has gone quiet? A brief, professional update every few weeks - new film, a recent result, or an upcoming camp you are attending - keeps you visible without becoming excessive. Should I add reach schools to my list if recruiting has slowed down? Yes. Expanding your list, including Parallel Path schools where you would attend without playing, protects your college outcome regardless of how the athletic recruiting process unfolds. Is it too late to attend a prospect camp this late in the process? No. Camps remaining on the calendar are still valuable, especially when digital outreach has slowed because they put you directly in front of a coaching staff. What is a Parallel Path in college recruiting? A Parallel Path is a group of colleges that are a strong holistic fit for an athlete academically and socially, even if they may not enable athletic participation. It is a strategy we develop directly with our clients at RecruitU. Will a post-grad prep or academy year affect my NCAA eligibility? It can, depending on your age and the NCAA’s 5 in 5 eligibility rule. The impact is not automatic and depends on individual circumstances, so this decision should be made with guidance from someone who understands the rule, not on your own. Ready for a Recruiting Strategy That Adjusts With You?RecruitU combines former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks — Expertise Plus Access, for athletes and families navigating every stage of the recruiting process, including the moments when it goes quiet. Contact RecruitU to Reset Your Recruiting Strategy → 
The 5-in-5 rule is now official. A lawsuit was quickly filed. And the one-time transfer limitation — the issue that most directly squeezes high school athletes out of opportunities — was dropped from the proposal entirely. Here's the breakdown and current implications for major recruiting stakeholders and their families. By George White | June 25, 2026 | Recruiting Tips The NCAA's age-based 5-in-5 eligibility model is now officially approved — and the fallout was immediate. This piece is an update and deeper look at the rule now that the dust is starting to settle, updating my original analysis of the terms of the NCAA's initial proposal — what was approved, what the NCAA quietly dropped from its earlier proposal, the lawsuit already filed and the Congressional action that could still reshape everything. To understand the full picture — not just the headline — and what it means for high school athletes, college athletes and families navigating the recruiting process right now, read on. What Was ApprovedEarlier this week, the Division I Cabinet unanimously approved the age-based eligibility model. Five seasons of competition within a five-year window. The clock starts when a student-athlete first enrolls in college full-time, or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday — whichever comes first. Redshirts, hardship waivers, and clock extensions are essentially gone, with narrow exceptions for religious missions, pregnancy, or active-duty military service. Injured athletes will no longer qualify for extensions under this model. One note on the clock trigger: the rule as approved is anchored to full-time college enrollment, not high school graduation as stipulated in the original proposal. A traditional post-graduate year should not, in most cases, cost a student-athlete college eligibility as long as they enroll before the age threshold is crossed. Families should verify individual situations with a compliance expert, but a PG year is not automatically off the table.
⚠ NCAA Also Punted on the One-Year Transfer Rule The earlier version of this proposal included a provision that would have limited athletes to one transfer without having to sit out a year of competition. That provision was dropped entirely from what was approved — and most coverage is not mentioning it. This is the part of this story that matters most for high school athletes. More below.
What the NCAA Left Out — And Why Nobody Is Talking About ItThe earlier version of this proposal — which evolved significantly as it moved through the committee and review process — included a provision that would have limited athletes to one transfer with immediate playing eligibility, with a second transfer requiring a year in residence before being able to compete. That provision was dropped entirely from what was approved. To understand why this is significant, you need to understand where transfer rules stand today. In 2024, the NCAA eliminated all restrictions on the number of times an athlete can transfer, granting immediate eligibility regardless of how many times they move. The result has been a transfer portal that now functions like a free agency market.
Transfer Portal Impact — 2026 Cycle
FBS players who entered portal
~25%
Group of Six all-conf. players who stayed
29.5%
Power Four all-conf. players who stayed
74.6%
SEC/Big Ten eligible returners who stayed
97.4%
Source: CBS Sports / Transfer portal data, 2026 cycle
The portal has fundamentally disrupted roster continuity and, critically, consumed scholarship spots that would likely go to incoming high school recruits. Limiting transfers to one immediately eligible move was the most direct mechanism available to begin restoring that balance. The NCAA had it in its initial proposal. It removed it. This is not a small omission. Even President Trump's April executive order on college sports specifically directed the NCAA to allow athletes to transfer only once before graduating without sitting out, with a second transfer triggering a redshirt season. The NCAA moved forward on eligibility and left transfers completely untouched.
"The transfer portal problem remains exactly where it was. High school athletes are still competing for roster spots against a revolving door of experienced transfers. That dynamic is not changing under this rule."
A Lawsuit Was Filed Quickly — The NCAA Is Moving Forward AnywayShortly after the Cabinet vote, a group of 15 college basketball players filed suit in Ohio state court claiming the new age-based model unfairly shuts them out of further competition. The plaintiffs are members of the high school Class of 2022 — athletes who began their college careers in fall 2022, never redshirted, and now find themselves denied a fifth year that players they competed against were granted through COVID extensions. The complaint argues that the new rule "unjustifiably restrains their ability to earn money through use of their name, image, and likeness connected to their work as Division I athletes." Importantly, the suit doesn't challenge the 5-in-5 concept. The plaintiffs challenge the selective application — pointing out that classes of 2017–2020 and 2023–2025 received additional years of competition, and that former professional players were permitted to compete in a fifth year, while the Class of 2022 is denied the same. Attorneys filed for a temporary restraining order, which was denied, and a hearing on a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for next Wednesday. Similar lawsuits are expected in other states. The Division I Cabinet responded that it is aware of the legal action and does not intend to change course. Here is why this matters beyond the courtroom: if a court grants preliminary injunctive relief, next season could look like a COVID hybrid year — some athletes competing under extended eligibility while the broader system has moved on. Roster spots, playing time expectations for incoming freshmen, and recruiting timelines would all be disrupted. This is not a far-fetched outcome. We have seen it before.
If You're a College Athlete Who Just Used Your 4th Year of Eligibility And you still want to compete — look into the litigation groups forming around this issue. Joining may be your clearest path to obtaining an additional year of eligibility. Similar to the COVID era, a court-ordered hybrid season is a real possibility if injunctive relief is granted.
The transfer portal and spending arms race aren't just a college problem — they're squeezing high school athletes out of opportunity at every level. Source: RecruitU The Protect College Sports Act: The Transfer Rule's Last Hope — And Much MoreThe only remaining vehicle to address the transfer portal problem is federal legislation. The Protect College Sports Act, written after months of bipartisan negotiation between Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell and also sponsored by Senators Eric Schmitt and Chris Coons, was introduced on May 27, 2026, passed the Senate Commerce Committee and is headed to a full Senate vote. Under the bill, NCAA athletes would only be allowed to transfer one time without penalty. A second transfer would result in sitting out one full year of competition — a return to rules that were in place before the portal era began. But the transfer provision is just one piece. This is sweeping legislation that covers a range of issues that will affect athletes, families, programs and schools:
One critical caveat: even as a bipartisan bill, it will still need 60 votes to clear the Senate — a threshold supporters do not currently have. The bill's predecessor, the SCORE Act, stalled and was pulled from the House floor earlier this year. The version of the Protect College Sports Act that ultimately passes — if it passes — may look different from what was introduced. Federal legislation, if enacted, would also be far more resistant to legal challenges than any NCAA rule. The antitrust exemption is what gives Congress the ability to settle many of these issues in a way the NCAA simply cannot on its own.
Take Action: Contact Your Senator and Congressperson If you care about creating more opportunities for high school athletes in the recruiting process, urge your elected representatives to support the Protect College Sports Act. This is one of the most direct levers available right now — and who gets heard on this matters.
The Youth Redshirting Issue Nobody Is DiscussingHere is a downstream consequence that has continued to fly under the radar. Many parents hold their children back a year in school — commonly called "redshirting" in youth sports — to give them a physical development edge by the time the college recruiting window begins. Under the new age-based model, that decision could cost a student-athlete a year of college eligibility depending on when they turn 19 relative to their enrollment date. This will affect families who made that choice previously without the foresight of what it might mean for college eligibility down the line. It is a conversation high school counselors and coaches need to be having with parents and athletes. The Bottom Line: This Landscape Is Constantly ShiftingThe rule is approved. Litigation is already in court. Congress is still in play, and the Protect College Sports Act — which addresses far more than just transfers and eligibility — could change the picture significantly depending on what passes and what gets amended. What happens in a federal courtroom or on a Senate floor this summer could redefine the rules again before the fall season even begins. I am tracking all of this closely and in real time. If you have questions about how any of this affects your situation as an athlete, a family, or a high school program, reach out directly. Given how much is moving at once, this is a conversation worth having sooner rather than later. Rollout Timeline — For Reference
George White
Founder of RecruitU and former Division I coach. George was a Head Coach at the Division II and DIII levels and served as an assistant at the DI level. A former college athlete, he was Co-Captain of the Harvard Basketball Team. Full bio on LinkedIn.
The headlines from the Big Ten's spring meetings in Rancho Palos Verdes are telling: SEC and Big Ten leaders are openly exploring a breakaway from the NCAA. NCAA president Charlie Baker keeps inching toward accommodation. And the financial arms race at the top of college sports continues to accelerate — with no ceiling in sight.
This is a moment that demands clarity and courage, not capitulation. Charlie Baker and the NCAA must stop rewarding secession threats with concessions — because the premise behind those threats doesn't hold up to scrutiny. "This isn't a movement of financial giants demanding more oxygen. It's a handful of elite brands dragging their own struggling members — and the rest of college sports — into an arms race they cannot sustain." The Breakaway Bluff The argument from SEC and Big Ten leadership is that the current governance structure — particularly the College Sports Commission's enforcement of the House settlement's NIL cap — is too restrictive for their biggest programs to compete. The implicit threat: give us more room to spend, or we walk. Charlie Baker has not called that bluff. He should. A breakaway is not simple. SEC schools remain bound to the House settlement and its $2.4 billion in backpay obligations. A separation would require expanded conference staff, a new enforcement infrastructure, and — most significantly — the potential end of participation in NCAA national championships and the College Football Playoff as currently structured. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey himself has acknowledged the breakaway "would not solve all the problems." Yet the threat persists, and the NCAA continues to treat it as leverage rather than calling it what it is. The Non-Revenue Sports Problem Nobody Has Solved Before the financial argument even begins, there is a structural obstacle to any SEC and Big Ten breakaway that has received almost no serious attention: what happens to the hundreds of non-revenue sports programs at these institutions? The NCAA's competition ecosystem — its championships, its scheduling frameworks, its eligibility rules — is the infrastructure that makes wrestling, swimming, track and field, gymnastics, soccer, rowing, tennis, golf and dozens of other sports viable at the Division I level. A breakaway from the NCAA is not a football and basketball decision. It is a decision that immediately creates a competition crisis for every other sport on campus. Where does a breakaway SEC or Big Ten school's swimming team compete? Who sanctions their wrestling championships? Which conferences welcome their soccer programs into ongoing competition - knowing those schools just blew up the system everyone else depends on? The answer, practically speaking, is that they won't. Remaining NCAA conferences - ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 remnants and others — would have little institutional incentive and significant political motivation to exclude breakaway programs from their non-revenue sports scheduling and championship structures. These conferences would be the direct beneficiaries of a fractured landscape. They are not going to make the transition easy. That means a breakaway SEC or Big Ten school would need to either:
This is not a hypothetical obstacle. It is a concrete, immediate and largely unsolved problem that SEC and Big Ten leadership have conspicuously avoided addressing in their public statements about secession. Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti speak about breakaway governance as if it involves only the sports that generate television contracts. It does not. Every gymnast, swimmer, wrestler, and soccer player at Rutgers, Arkansas, Maryland, and Mississippi State has a direct stake in this decision - and they are not at the table. The Inconvenient Truth Inside These Conferences Here is what gets lost in the breakaway narrative: the SEC and Big Ten are not monolithic blocks of financial strength. They are conferences where a small number of elite programs - Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia - are driving the spending agenda, while many of their own conference members are losing money at a pace that is genuinely alarming. These are not fringe programs. These are full dues-paying members of the very conferences threatening to secede - institutions whose universities are simultaneously under financial pressure from the demographic cliff, tightening federal funding and declining enrollment revenue. Athletic Department Financial Strain — Inside the Power Conferences
Rutgers has accumulated over $500 million in athletic losses since joining the Big Ten - deficits absorbed through institutional subsidies and, increasingly, student fees. Arkansas is openly soliciting donations from working-class fans to fund payroll-style athlete compensation. Maryland and Mississippi State face their own mounting deficits while their broader universities navigate the same enrollment headwinds hitting higher education nationally. The ACC schools can't be predisposed to share any revenue related to Olympic sports with the traitor SEC and Big Ten.
These schools are not positioned to escalate further. They are already losing ground. Yet their conference leadership - driven by the wealthiest brands at the table - is pushing for a governance structure that removes any spending ceiling at all. This is Ohio State and Texas pulling the rip cord. Their struggling conference partners are tumbling along for the ride. The Arms Race Has No Sustainable Floor The financial projections emerging from college football are staggering. Football rosters at the biggest brands are projected to climb toward $60 million per year in NIL/Revenue Sharing. More than two dozen schools are already believed to carry football rosters valued at $30 million or more. Basketball is not far behind. For programs like Rutgers, Maryland, Arkansas and Mississippi State, this trajectory is not a stretch goal - it is an existential threat. These schools cannot close a $30–$60 million annual roster gap through donor fundraising or multimedia rights deals. Their endowments don't support it. Their fan bases don't generate it. And their universities are under too much financial strain to absorb it.
The irony is striking: the conferences threatening to leave the NCAA for more spending freedom include programs that literally cannot afford the spending levels that already exist. The Fan Equation Nobody Is Discussing Lost in the governance debate is the most important stakeholder of all: the fan. College sports fandom is built on something that took generations to construct - traditions, rivalries, regional identity and the emotional investment of watching athletes who chose your school and stayed. That foundation is under direct assault from the current transactional landscape, and a breakaway scenario accelerates the damage. Do college sports fans actually want a world where the same 20–25 programs compete for national championships every year — while the rest of college sports hollows out around them? Fan interest is already showing signs of erosion. Roster turnover in the transfer portal era means programs are effectively rebuilt annually. Athletes follow the money - as they should, and as they are entitled to - but fans follow teams. They follow the name on the jersey. They follow the rivalries their parents and grandparents handed down to them. You cannot manufacture that in a 16-school breakaway super league. You cannot replicate a decades-long rivalry with a roster assembled over a single portal cycle. And you cannot ask fans to sustain the deep, irrational loyalty that drives college sports revenue in an environment that has become fully transactional. The NFL has parity rules, a salary cap and a draft precisely because competitive balance drives sustained fan engagement. College sports is moving in the opposite direction - toward a system where spending power alone determines competitive access - and calling it progress. What Baker and the NCAA Should Actually Do The House settlement is imperfect. The College Sports Commission has significant structural challenges. Congressional action is slow and uncertain. None of that means the answer is surrendering governance to the conferences with the largest checkbooks.
Bottom Line
The SEC and Big Ten breakaway threat is leverage — not inevitability. The conferences making that threat include programs that are already financially insolvent and cannot sustain the arms race they are demanding the freedom to escalate. And the breakaway itself is far more complicated than its architects will admit. No one has answered the most basic operational question: where do the swimmers, wrestlers, gymnasts, baseball, volleyball and soccer players at every SEC and Big Ten school compete when the other conferences close the door? A breakaway is not a football decision. It is a decision that puts hundreds of non-revenue programs - and thousands of student-athletes who had no say in any of this - in immediate competitive jeopardy. College sports fans deserve competitive breadth, genuine rivalries and a system where more than two dozen schools can realistically compete for national championships. Fan loyalty - the foundational asset that makes college sports worth billions - does not survive a fully transactional sports landscape. It never has. Charlie Baker and the NCAA must stop rewarding threats with concessions. Capitulation is not governance. Hold the line. 
 The NCAA is advancing a major shift in how college athlete eligibility is structured. At the center of the proposal is a “5-in-5” age-based eligibility model which would:
The stated goal is to create a simpler, more standardized, and more stable system. However, while the structure may become cleaner at the college level, the downstream impact on high school athletes, recruiting, and development pathways is significant—and widely underanalyzed. 1. Recruiting Opportunities for High School Athletes: Gradual Increase, Not Immediate Surge Recent guidance indicates these rules are not expected to apply retroactively to athletes completing eligibility by spring 2026. This creates a transitional reality:
Where the longer-term shift occurs (commencing 2027):
Key takeaway: Opportunities for high school athletes should increase—but gradually over time, not immediately. 2. Recruiting Pressure and Poaching at the High School Level Will Intensify As demand for high school athletes grows:
This is already happening—and will intensify further. Athlete retention is no longer passive. It is a strategic priority. 3. Prep Schools, Sports Academies and Reclassing Will Expand—and Get More Aggressive One of the most important—and overlooked—ramifications involves prep schools and sports academies. Under the proposed rules:
What This Means Prep schools and academies must adapt:
This is being driven by:
Resulting Impact
Key takeaway: Reclassing will likely increase as a strategic response to eligibility constraints—not just a development decision. 4. Timing Decisions Now Directly Determine Eligibility Under a “5-in-5” model:
Eligibility is no longer flexible—it is fixed and time-bound. Missteps can:
🎙️ Hear It Directly — RecruitU's George White on the Prep Athletics Podcast George breaks down exactly how the 5-in-5 rule affects PG year decisions, reclassing timelines, and what families need to do right now. Listen to the full episode here. 5. Standardized Eligibility: Simpler System, Less Flexibility A key objective of the NCAA proposal is to eliminate the current system of:
Replacing it with:
Implication
Injuries, delays, or poor decisions must now be absorbed within a fixed timeline. 6. Stronger Need for a Holistic Recruiting Process While high school opportunities may improve:
This creates a critical shift: Athletes must get the decision right the first time. Recruiting should now emphasize:
At RecruitU, this holistic evaluation is central to how athletes and families are guided through the process. 7. Mid- and Low-Major Programs Become More Attractive With reduced transfer movement:
This creates:
Result: Mid- and low-major programs become more attractive recruiting destinations, offering:
8. Other Ramifications to Monitor Additional impacts include:
How High School Programs Can Respond Programs that adapt early will have a clear advantage. Key actions:
Critically Important Programs must clearly explain: How a post-graduate (PG) year impacts an athlete’s college eligibility window. This is widely misunderstood. Without proper guidance, athletes may:
Key Takeaway The NCAA’s “5-in-5” proposal is creating:
Final Thought The system may be simpler—but the decisions required to navigate it are becoming more complex. Programs and families that understand the full downstream impact of these changes will be best positioned to succeed. |
AuthorOur Founder, George White was a Head Coach at both the Division II and DIII levels and served as an assistant at the DI level. A former college athlete, he was Co-Captain of the Harvard basektball Team. His full bio can be found here: Archives
October 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
